Man Arrested Near Capitol After IED, Rifle, Ammunition Allegedly Found in Jeep

Phoenixphire · Sep 7, 2008

imported post

I agree he may be lacking in good sense.

He might even be a bit on the odd side.

It just burns me to see those who will say that they themselves are reasonable people who should be allowed to keep and bear arms, then a story like this one comes out, and they start issuing opinions that he must be a lunatic.

What they fail to realize is that others may see THEM as lunatics. But infringing on one's rights because we don't agree with how they exercise them is a very slippery slope.

Doug Huffman · Sep 7, 2008

imported post

Phoenixphire wrote:

I agree he may be lacking in good sense.

He might even be a bit on the odd side.

It just burns me to see those who will say that they themselves are reasonable people who should be allowed to keep and bear arms, then a story like this one comes out, and they start issuing opinions that he must be a lunatic.

What they fail to realize is that others may see THEM as lunatics. But infringing on one's rights because we don't agree with how they exercise them is a very slippery slope.

Hear, hear. Well said.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hear_hear

We are all mad in our own special little way. Heaven forfend the Feds ever find it!

Thundar · Sep 7, 2008

imported post

Sonora Rebel wrote:

Thundar wrote:

So what did this guy do wrong?

Click to expand...

Well... he rigged explosives (IED's) by puttin' 'powder' in a grenade body with a firecracker for the detonator. That's totally illegal anywhere.

The 'AK"... Not somethin' you'd take onna huntin' trip... altho ya could I guess. 'Looks like this guy was a 'goof' rather than somebody who'd taken the wrong turn off 95.

Handgun, rifle, hand grenade - all bearable arms used by modern soldiers. What did the guy do wrong?

DreQo · Sep 7, 2008

imported post

Thundar wrote:

Sonora Rebel wrote:

Thundar wrote:

So what did this guy do wrong?

Click to expand...

Well... he rigged explosives (IED's) by puttin' 'powder' in a grenade body with a firecracker for the detonator. That's totally illegal anywhere.

The 'AK"... Not somethin' you'd take onna huntin' trip... altho ya could I guess. 'Looks like this guy was a 'goof' rather than somebody who'd taken the wrong turn off 95.

Click to expand...

Handgun, rifle, hand grenade - all bearable arms used by modern soldiers. What did the guy do wrong?

Heviolated multiple standing laws. Are those laws constitutional? Maybe, maybe not, BUT we still have to follow them until we are able to change them.

Phoenixphire · Sep 7, 2008

imported post

Hmmm....

It was illegal for Jefferson, Hancock, Franklin, and Adams, among others, to sign the Declaration of Independence.

Doing something that is illegal is not necessarily wrong. To often, people equate legality with morality or reason.

Doing something illegal is just that, illegal.

The "crimes" he is being charged with should not be crimes. No one has shown that he had nefarious intent in possession of said arms. No reports of threats against anyone, of a history of violent behavior, anything.

One should not follow the law simply because it is the law. To follow a law is a moral choice. When a law compels one to surrender a natural right, one must question what he or she is willing to risk to preserve that right.

Liberty? Employment? Life? What would one risk to preserve one's right?

I just disagree that one should always follow the law. There are times when one must take a stand.

In regard to this individual, I have no idea what his motivation was. Maybe he decided to become a test case. Maybe he just like the security of being heavily armed. Maybe he is mentally ill, and wished to harm others.

However, I will follow the principle that one is innocent until guilty, and that until compelling evidence is provided that he possessed with intent to harm, he has my support against any law that violates our natural, Constitutionally-guaranteed human rights.

EDIT: Spell Checker doesn't catch contextual errors.... :?

esstac · Sep 7, 2008

imported post

The rifle was in a case that was visible, was the pistol or grenade?

Is he from DC? or passing through? Im not 100% sure but if he is not from DC and just passing through isn't he legal to pass through with the rifle secured in the case?

The grenade is moot to me if it was not visible but only the rifle case was, assuming the rifle is kosher if just passing through again.

So if he is legal to transport the rifle across DC(again I am assuming) what did he do wrong to warrant the stop and the search of the vehicle? I sure hope he did not consent to a search. Having the grenade is bad juju, but if it was found while doing an unwarranted search :uhoh:

DreQo · Sep 7, 2008

imported post

Choosing to make a stand against an immoral or unconstitutional law is one thing. People keep asking what this guy did wrong, implying that there's no reason he should have been arrested in the first place. He obviously broke multiple laws.

As far as the rifle case goes, I've heard on multiple occasions that a case that is obviously meant to hold a rifle IS enough evidence to assume the person has a firearm in their possession, and therefore provides reasonable suspicion of a crime IF possession of said firearm is unlawful.

Phoenixphire · Sep 7, 2008

imported post

Hmmm...

I think the disconnect is occurring at "wrong" and "illegal".

I think wrong is being used in a moral sense, and a "these-laws-are-unconstitutional" sense. The topic was that some were condemning this person, and the question was being posed as to what action deserved the condemnation.

It is obviously illegal, under standing laws, to possess the weapons listed while in D.C., barring some form of exception (peaceful journey, etc). I don't think anyone is disputing the arrest, except that the arrest was to enforce what is viewed as unconstitutional law.

Grapeshot · Sep 8, 2008

imported post

Phoenixphire wrote:

Hmmm....

It was illegal for Jefferson, Hancock, Franklin, and Adams, among others, to sign the Declaration of Independence.

Doing something that is illegal is not necessarily wrong. To often, people equate legality with morality or reason.

Doing something illegal is just that, illegal.

The "crimes" he is being charged with should not be crimes. No one has shown that he had nefarious intent in possession of said arms. No reports of threats against anyone, of a history of violent behavior, anything.

One should not follow the law simply because it is the law. To follow a law is a moral choice. When a law compels one to surrender a natural right, one must question what he or she is willing to risk to preserve that right.

Liberty? Employment? Life? What would one risk to preserve one's right?

I just disagree that one should always follow the law. There are times when one must take a stand.

In regard to this individual, I have no idea what his motivation was. Maybe he decided to become a test case. Maybe he just like the security of being heavily armed. Maybe he is mentally ill, and wished to harm others.

However, I will follow the principle that one is innocent until guilty, and that until compelling evidence is provided that he possessed with intent to harm, he has my support against any law that violates our natural, Constitutionally-guaranteed human rights.

EDIT: Spell Checker doesn't catch contextual errors.... :?

The moralistic attitude is fine even perhaps noble. Our patriots from the past broke many of the kings laws and risked the penalties thereof. Few of us are unaware of that.

Right or wrong, good or bad as the laws may be today, anyone breaking them also risks their own "sacred lives and fortunes." We must each consider the potential price and make our own decision. Sad to say that you can be morally right but legally wrong.

This man knew or should have known the law, didn't honor it and now has been called to task. This should surprise no one.

Yata hey

Phoenixphire · Sep 8, 2008

imported post

I just draw exception to the attitude of condemnation that so quickly came down on this man.

I am not surprised that he was arrested. I am just surprised at the response of a few of our members, and would like to politely ask them to reconsider their positions.

Grapeshot · Sep 8, 2008

imported post

That is my whole point. Some are too quick to defend and/or then quick to condemn.

Observation and comment is one thing, rushing to judgement is entirely another.

Perhaps we should not let facts cloud our thinking. :?

Yata hey

deepdiver · Sep 8, 2008

imported post

I am withholding judgment until more facts are known. I am still not clear on several matters such as were the firearms unloaded and locked in a case as is required under federal law? Was possession of the grenade illegal? If it required certain licensure did he have such a license?

Our strength lies in the fact that we are law abiding citizens. If we are doing our best to know and follow the laws and are still arrested, detained or otherwise molested by LE, especially when we are fully in compliance it really burns my butt. However, when people choose to flagrantly violate the law it also burns my butt as it does nothing except weaken our position as LAC acting legally, or at least doing our best to act legally in the face of tens of thousands of often contradictory laws.

Until we have the information necessary to even begin to opine as to whether this man is a LAC who was caught up by over-anxious LEOs or who made a mistake in his understanding of the law OR if he was someone blatantly flaunting the law who contacted an LEO for directions to ensure that he was caught in a flagrant act of civil disobedience OR if he was just someone blatantly flaunting the law for his own purposes or other possible facts/motivations, I think it dangerous for us to jump onto either side of the issue. The man carrying guns in and of itself is not prima facie evidence that he is a good guy or a bad guy or just a guy who is a bit of both.

nitrovic · Sep 9, 2008

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

nitrovic wrote:

, tell that to the cops who ran in the burning buildings on 9-11 to save civilians[sic].

Click to expand...

Fellow citizens, fool. I was military and retired from the DoD/DoN. Now we are citizens.

I wonder how many citizens perished in the WTC on 9/11/91 after running in to save their fellows?

Either we are equal or we are not......

Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth.

You were the one bagging on the police (again, and again, and again). I was just making the point that they ran into the buildings. The majority of citizens I saw were running away from the buildings. And as far as the "fool" line, read part (2) of the defintion, fool-

CIVILIAN-

n.

A person following the pursuits of civil life, especially one who is not an active member of the military, the police, or a belligerent group.
A person who does not belong to a particular group or engage in a particular activity.
A specialist in Roman or civil law.

nitrovic · Sep 9, 2008

imported post

Phoenixphire wrote:

I agree he may be lacking in good sense.

He might even be a bit on the odd side.

It just burns me to see those who will say that they themselves are reasonable people who should be allowed to keep and bear arms, then a story like this one comes out, and they start issuing opinions that he must be a lunatic.

What they fail to realize is that others may see THEM as lunatics. But infringing on one's rights because we don't agree with how they exercise them is a very slippery slope.

Infringing on his right to have a grenade near the Capitol? What right is that?

Orygunner · Sep 9, 2008

imported post

nitrovic wrote:

Phoenixphire wrote:

I agree he may be lacking in good sense.

He might even be a bit on the odd side.

It just burns me to see those who will say that they themselves are reasonable people who should be allowed to keep and bear arms, then a story like this one comes out, and they start issuing opinions that he must be a lunatic.

What they fail to realize is that others may see THEM as lunatics. But infringing on one's rights because we don't agree with how they exercise them is a very slippery slope.

Click to expand...

Infringing on his right to have a grenade near the Capitol? What right is that?

It'scalledthe Right to Keep and Bear Arms. It comes from the human right of self defense, and the rights of life & liberty. Supposedly the right is protected by the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution, but somewhere along the way the government either wanted to try and protect us from ourselves, or became afraid of us, and started infringing upon that right.

It's really quite logical. The2nd Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms.Grenades qualify asarms. Therefore, the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear grenades.

...See, pretty easy, huh? And it really can't be argued against successfully, either...
...Orygunner...

ScottyT · Sep 9, 2008

imported post

I can't believe I am the first to mention this:

What has happened here? In the three news stories quoted on page one of this thread, not one reporter called the AK an "assault weapon/assalt rifle"!!! They all correctly used the word "rifle"!

Never thought I would see the day that the media would miss an opportunity to jump all over the dangers of assault weapons!
:what:

hsmith · Sep 9, 2008

imported post

nitrovic wrote:

Infringing on his right to have a grenade near the Capitol? What right is that?

Well, it could be legal if he had the proper paperwork for destructive devices and was simply passing through the city.

But, no NFA paperwork for destructive devices = no go.

Phoenixphire · Sep 9, 2008

imported post

The concern is people only offering their support to someone if their action is "legal".

Laws are not always correct.

I support this man's (do we have a name yet?) right to keep and bear arms.

This means anything that a solider may have available, he should have available. Now, I am not stating that his actions were legal. I am stating that his actions SHOULD be legal.

Slayer of Paper · Sep 9, 2008

imported post

Since when did having a gun case visible in your car become probable cause for a search? (Note if the guy was dumb enough to give permission for a search, then he's on his own.) Assuming he didn't, was that search even legal? It wouldn't be here in Free America, but you never know in the People's District of Columbia.

Grapeshot · Sep 9, 2008

imported post

Slayer of Paper wrote:

Since when did having a gun case visible in your car become probable cause for a search? (Note if the guy was dumb enough to give permission for a search, then he's on his own.) Assuming he didn't, was that search even legal? It wouldn't be here in Free America, but you never know in the People's District of Columbia.

When in Washington D.C. for starters.

If you're going to travel, it is wise to know the applicable gun laws of the area - D.C., New York, California to name a few. Actually, I would research thoroughly any city, state or country that I was visiting.

Your profile doen't indicate in what state you reside, so we have no clue as to where your idea of a "Free America" is.

Yata hey

Man Arrested Near Capitol After IED, Rifle, Ammunition Allegedly Found in Jeep

Campaign Veteran

Banned

Regular Member

State Researcher

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

State Researcher

Campaign Veteran

Legendary Warrior

Campaign Veteran

Legendary Warrior

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior